Monday, March 25, 2013

Hear Me America, Army Officer Warns DHS Preparing For War On American Citizens (Video)

On Saturday, Terry M. Hestilow, a retired United States Army Captain from Fort Worth, Texas, posted a letter on Facebook that he wrote to Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, warning that the Department of Homeland Security is preparing to go to war with the citizens of the United States.

Dear friends, the following is a copy of my correspondence
with Senator Cornyn concerning the arming of the DHS for war against the
citizens of our nation. You are each encouraged to copy and properly
amend this letter to send to your own senators and members of the U.S.
House.

Further, I am somewhat overwhelmed at the response to my
posts leading up to this letter on this issue. At this point almost
3,000 of you have shared my original post, I have 994 new friends
requests, 61 messages, and 70 new comments to process. Please be patient with me and pray that this window of
communication remains open to all of us as we respond to this threat
against our Constitution and our people. I am awed by you, by your
positive response, and your wonderful support. We each have a role to
play in standing against this present tyranny.

Part of that proper response is sending them a letter like
this from YOU, and following it up to make sure it remains a "hot
button" issue that must be resolved. God bless you as you honor your
oaths and your obligations as citizens of this free nation. May we once
again know honorable leadership and peace at home. With all sincerity
and respect--Resolved, Captain Terry M. Hestilow, United States Army,
Retired.

The Honorable Senator John Cornyn, State of Texas

United States Senate

517 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Re: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and that agencies
preparation for war against citizens of the United States of America.

Dear Senator Cornyn,

It is with gravest concern that I write to you today
concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) that can only be understood as a bold threat of
war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens
of the United States of America. To date, DHS has been unwilling to
provide to you, the elected representatives of the People, justification
for recent purchases of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected
(MRAP) armored personnel carriers, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition
(with associated weapons), and other weapons systems, when, in fact, the
DHS has no war mission or war making authority within the limits of the
United States of America.

Significant is the fact that at the same time the Obama
administration is arming his DHS for war within the limits of the United
States against the People of the United States in accordance with his
2008 campaign speech claiming,

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to
achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta
(sic) have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful,
just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States
military]”--Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.

The Obama administration is deliberately defunding,
overextending, and hollowing the Department of Defense; the only
legitimate agency of the U.S. government with a war mission.

This act of the Obama administration stands as a glaring
threat of war against our nation’s citizens! This act of the Obama
administration can only be understood as a tyrannical threat against the
Constitution of the United States of America! If left unresolved, the
peace loving citizens who have sworn to defend the United States
Constitution “against all enemies, both foreign and domestic” are left
no option except to prepare to defend themselves, and the U.S.
Constitution, against this Administration’s “coup” against the People
and the foundations of liberty fought for and defended for the past 238
years. We have no choice if we honor our oaths.

The only proper response to this threat against the American
people is for the representatives of the People, the members of the U.S.
House and Senate, to demand in clear terms that the Administration
cannot ignore, that the Department of Homeland Security immediately
surrender their newly appropriated weapons of war to the Department of
Defense (DoD). Further, since the DHS has assumed a position in the
Administration to enforce the tyrannical acts of this president against
the People of the United States against the limits of the United States
Constitution, it remains for the United States Congress to exercise its
limiting power in the balancing of powers established by our founding
fathers, to disestablish and dissolve the DHS as soon as possible. One
needs only to look to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and his associated DHS
organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of
allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free
citizens of a nation. The people of Germany could not have imagined,
until it was too late, the danger of allowing a tyrant this kind of
power. We must not be so naïve as to think it will not happen to us as
well if we remain passive toward this power grab by the Marxist Obama
administration!

Finally, for more than two centuries the nation has lived in
peace at home because of the protections of our legitimate military and
the many appropriate state and federal law enforcement agencies,
supported by Constitutional courts. We stand today at a cross-road.
Will we allow this present Administration to overthrow our United States
Constitution and its legal processes to amend injustices, or, will we
honor our obligations to defend the Constitution against a “domestic”
enemy? Our Constitution lays out the proper methods of resolving our
differences; and it does not include its overthrow by a rogue agency of a
Marxist leadership at home. You, sir, are our constitutionally elected
agent to defend our Constitution at home. We are counting upon you.
We remain aware, however, of this present threat and will not expose
ourselves as an easy prey to the authors of the destruction of our
nation.

I know that this letter demands much of you. We elected you
because we, the citizens of the State of Texas, believe that you are up
to the task at hand and will, against all threats, honor your oath and
office. We are also writing to your fellow members of the House and
Senate to stand in integrity with the Constitution and against this
present threat by the Obama administration and his DHS. We refuse to surrender our Constitution or our nation!Resolved,Captain Terry M. HestilowUnited States Army, Retired

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is preparing for
"massive civil war" in America.The federal government is preparing for
civil uprising," he added, "so every time you hear about troop
movements, every time you hear about movements of military equipment,
the militarization of the police, the buying of the ammunition, all of
this is . . . they (DHS) are preparing for a massive uprising."

Spiritual illness can be worse than physical. Depression can be
worse than cancer. Spiritual emptiness can make one cold and numb. For terminal sicknesses,
request for prayers from the Mother Ignacia Prayer Warriors, with global
members, at sr.raquel.rvm@gmail.com

The root of the problem on the Sabah
issue is the lack of political will in high places, the lack of courage to
pursue, the fear of making a mistake which helped make more and bigger
mistakes. Noynoy has been using a type of diplomacy which is not working –
authoritarian yet fearful and panicky, covert rather than overt using secret
couriers, exuding a peace stance which would ironically bring war. Right now,
Noynoy is getting an avalanche of flak worldwide.

Noynoy also displays a lack of in-depth
knowledge, hinting that he needs historians and anthropologists over and above
his political appointees in the Cabinet who sways him so easily into new
blunders.As one columnist puts it, it
is ignorance and arrogance all at once. But all is not hopeless. Noynoy can
change things if he wants to, if he goes beyond his Cabinet, if decides to be
fearless and wise all at once, if he adopts some aggressiveness, if he begins
to get an in-depth insight into this huge complex geopolitical issue.

A
Bit of History

Here are some basics on Sabah history to
begin with. A Bornean Sultan was at war with a neighboring sultanate. At that
time, there were many rival Muslim principalities from Sulu to Borneo to
Melanesia. The rivalry revolved around economics, that is, trade and territory.
When he was about to lose that war, the Bornean Sultan sent an urgent message
for help to the Tausug Sultan of Jolo. In the ensuing rescue, the Bornean
Sultan prevailed, and rewarded the Tausug Sultanate with territory, namely,
Sabah.

When the British gave independence to
Malaysia, it ceded Sabah, which it did not own or colonize, to the Malaysians.
To settle matters and avoid conflict, Malaysia offered to rent Sabah for a song.
The Tausug Sultanate agreed. The contract exists today. Malaysia has been
paying the inheritors of the Tausug Sultanate. This is prima facie evidence that Malaysia in fact DOES NOT OWN Sabah, and
is a tenant to the landlord Tausug Sultan.

The Tausug royalty requested President
Diosdado Macapagal to help retrieve Sabah from the Malaysians. Like Noynoy,
Macapagal had no political will. He was not strong, aggressive, or creative
enough to deduce a strategy. The implication of the Tausug request is that Sabah
was now elevated from a concern of a Sultanate to that of the Philippine
government, of which the Tausugs were a part.

Marcos had the political will, one of
the few Presidents we had who had balls, but his plan was not brainy enough. He
organized a secret army of Tausug warriors to invade Sabah, which ended up as
the infamous Jabidah massacre. All was lost for now on the effort to retrieve
Sabah. Marcos was a lawyer and knew from evidence the case of Sabah would win
in the international courts. But he had an insight into geopolitics and world
history. He knew the Malaysian will not go to court or to the bargaining table.
Like the Japanese and Germans in World War II, he knew war was the only option.
He was right because Sabah is rich in oil and gas, and the tenant will not just
give it up in a lousy court case. We are back to the trade and territory issue
of the Muslim principalities of old. Malaysia in truth is asking to be invaded.

When Noynoy failed to support the side
of Kiram and the Tausugs, he virtually degraded the concern of Sabah as a
government matter achieved by Macapagal back to the concern of the Tausugs. He
also showed his tail behind his legs to the Malaysians, who were emboldened to
employ overkill. He not only incurred the ire of the entire Bangsa Moro for
abandoning the Muslim Filipinos, he showed his weakness to the Malaysians, who
took the initiative. That is one big geopolitical blunder which the entire
world is watching right now.

Towards
a Geopolitical Strategy

The international community plays a
crucial role in solving the Sabah impasse, even if we forget the courts, to
which Malaysia (and China in the Spratleys) will never take as an option.
Diplomatic pressure is the key. For example, can we possibly ask the
Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) to intervene? It is a conflict of
Muslims versus Muslims. Can we (or not so much we but the Tausugs) not get the
sympathy of specific Muslim countries? After all, we are the underdog. We are
the one’s being bullied, a small band of Tausugs facing tanks and jets.

Can we not strike a deal with an oil
Islamic country or even the big Western powers (this is dangerous, but we are
desperate) to help us retrieve Sabah in return for an exclusive partnership to
the oil and gas? We do not have to go to war to retrieve Sabah.

There are many other geopolitical
possibilities. It is just that Noynoy and all the President’s men are not
thinking enough. Their diplomacy is panicky, knee-jerk, clandestine, and based
on lack of information on Sabah and insight into the essence of aggressive
diplomacy.

Even China may start to soften up in the
Spratleys if they know they have a window on the rich Sabah oil and gas, which
is easier and quicker to extract at this point. We may even hit two birds with
one stone with China. The energy crisis is actually our ally, a geopolitical
tool that will bring bounty. There are many more options we can brainstorm on.

But when I say ‘our’, I mean in behalf
of the Tausugs, the real and essential owners based on history. They must have
a major role in 1) any new autonomous local government in Sabah, 2) a major
share in the oil and gas bounty. If we set the Tausugs to the side and they see
Sabah progress rapidly without them, there will be a new war of Christians and
Muslims never before seen, where they will try to separate into an independent
state. That war may polarize and escalate to include other regional powers.

Right now, the Tausugs have the
advantage of 1) sympathy from other Muslim nations for being bullied by a
tenant, 2) being in a position to launch a protracted guerrilla war in the
remote rainforests of Sabah that can last for decades. Having an
anthropological and historical knowledge of the Tausug as warrior (this is not
romanticizing), this is very possible. The poverty of Muslims in Mindanao will
strengthen that guerrilla war. Then, all they need would be more arms from
outside supporters. We can nip that protracted war in the bud if we just
somehow make our next chess move brilliant. eastwindreplyctr@gmail.com

[Note: for newspapers here and abroad,
Filipino or non-Filipino, you all have permission to reprint this article
without asking. Just inform the author by email, and place his byline and email
address to receive feedback.]

At a time when much of the world is looking with a mix of envy and excitement at the recent boom in USA unconventional gas from shale rock, when countries from China to Poland to France to the UK are beginning to launch their own ventures into unconventional shale gas extraction, hoping it is the cure for their energy woes, the US shale boom is revealing itself to have been a gigantic hyped confidence bubble that is already beginning to deflate. Carpe diem!Voltaire Network | 15 March 2013+

JPEG - 29 kb

America: The New Saudi Arabia?

If we’re to believe the current media reports out of Washington and the US oil and gas industry, the United States is about to become the “new Saudi Arabia.” We are told she is suddenly and miraculously on the track to energy self-sufficiency. No longer need the US economy depend on high-risk oil or gas from the politically unstable Middle East or African countries. The Obama White House energy adviser, Heather Zichal, has even shifted her focus from pushing carbon cap ‘n trade schemes to promoting America’s “shale revolution.” [1]

In his January 2012 State of the Union Address to Congress, President Obama claimed that, largely owing to the shale gas revolution, “We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years.” [2]

Renowned energy experts like Cambridge Energy Research’s Daniel Yergin in recent Congressional testimony waxed almost poetic about the purported benefits of the recent US shale oil and gas exploitation: “The United States is in the midst of the ‘unconventional revolution in oil and gas’ that, it becomes increasingly apparent, goes beyond energy itself.” He didn’t explain what exactly energy going beyond energy itself means. He also claimed that “the industry supports 1.7 million jobs – a considerable accomplishment given the relative newness of the technology. That number could rise to 3 million by 2020.” [3] Very impressive numbers.

Mr Yergin went on to suggest a major geopolitical dimension of America’s shale oil and gas industry, saying “expansion of US energy exports will add an additional dimension to US influence in the world…Shale gas has risen from two percent of domestic production a decade ago to 37 percent of supply, and prices have dropped dramatically. US oil output, instead of continuing its long decline, has increased dramatically – by about 38 percent since 2008. Just the increase since 2008 is equivalent to the entire output of Nigeria, the seventh-largest producing country in OPEC…People talk about the potential geopolitical impact of the shale gas and tight oil. That impact is already here…” [4]

In their Energy Outlook to 2030, published in 2012, BP’s CEO Bob Dudley sounded a similar upbeat projection of the role of shale gas and oil in making North America energy independent of the Middle East. BP predicted that growth in shale oil and gas supplies—“along with other fuel sources”—will make the western hemisphere virtually self-sufficient in energy by 2030. In a development with enormous geopolitical implications, a large swath of the world including North and South America would see its dependence on oil imports from potentially volatile countries in the Middle East and elsewhere disappear, BP added. [5]

There’s only one thing wrong with all the predictions of a revitalized United States energy superpower flooding the world with its shale oil and shale gas. It’s based on a bubble, on hype from the usual Wall Street spin doctors. In reality it is becoming increasingly clear that the shale revolution is a short-term flash in the energy pan, a new Ponzi fraud, carefully built with the aid of the same Wall Street banks and their “market analyst” friends, many of whom brought us the 2000 “dot.com” bubble and, more spectacularly, the 2002-2007 US real estate securitization bubble. A more careful look at the actual performance of the shale revolution and its true costs is instructive.Halliburton Loopholes

One reason we hear little about the declining fortunes of shale gas and oil is that the boom is so recent, reaching significant proportions only in 2009-2010. Long-term field extraction data for a significant number of shale gas wells only recently is coming to light. Another reason is that there have grown up huge vested corporate interests from Wall Street to the oil industry who are trying everything possible to keep the shale revolution myth alive. Despite all their efforts however, data coming to light, mostly for the review of industry professionals, is alarming.

Shale gas has recently come onto the gas market in the US via use of several combined techniques developed among others by Dick Cheney’s old company, Halliburton Inc. Halliburton several years ago combined new methods for drilling in a horizontal direction with injection of chemicals and “fracking,” or hydraulic fracturing of the shale rock formations that often trap volumes of natural gas. Until certain changes in the last few years, shale gas was considered uneconomical. Because of the extraction method, shale gas is dubbed unconventional and is extracted in far different ways from conventional gas.

The US Department of Energy’ EIA defines conventional oil and gas as oil and gas “produced by a well drilled into a geologic formation in which the reservoir and fluid characteristics permit the oil and natural gas to readily flow to the wellbore.” Conversely, unconventional hydrocarbon production doesn’t meet these criteria, either because geological formations present a very low level of porosity and permeability, or because the fluids have a density approaching or even exceeding that of water, so that they cannot be produced, transported, and refined by conventional methods. By definition then, unconventional oil and gas are far more costly and difficult to extract than conventional, one reason they only became attractive when oil prices soared above $100 a barrel in early 2008 and more or less remained there.

To extract the unconventional shale gas, a hydraulic fracture is formed by pumping a fracturing fluid into the wellbore at sufficient pressure causing the porous shale rock strata to crack. The fracture fluid, whose precise contents are usually company secret and extremely toxic, continues further into the rock, extending the crack. The trick is to then prevent the fracture from closing and ending the supply of gas or oil to the well. Because in a typical fracked well fluid volumes number in millions of gallons of water, water mixed with toxic chemicals, fluid leak-off or loss of fracturing fluid from the fracture channel into the surrounding permeable rock takes place. If not controlled properly, that fluid leak-off can exceed 70% of the injected volume resulting in formation matrix damage, adverse formation fluid interactions, or altered fracture geometry and thereby decreased production efficiency. [6]

Hydraulic fracturing has recently become the preferred US method of extracting unconventional oil and gas resources. In North America, some estimate that hydraulic fracturing will account for nearly 70% of natural gas development in the future.

Why have we just now seen the boom in fracking shale rock to get gas and oil? Thank then-Vice president Dick Cheney and friends. The real reason for the recent explosion of fracking in the United States was passage of legislation in 2005 by the US Congress that exempted the oil industry’s hydraulic fracking, astonishing as it sounds, from any regulatory supervision by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The oil and gas industry is the only industry in America that is allowed by EPA to inject known hazardous materials – unchecked – directly into or adjacent to underground drinking water supplies. [7]

The 2005 law is known as the “Halliburton Loophole.” That’s because it was introduced on massive lobbying pressure from the company that produces the lion’s share of chemical hydraulic fracking fluids – Dick Cheney’s old company, Halliburton. When he became Vice President under George W. Bush in early 2001, Cheney immediately got Presidential responsibility for a major Energy Task Force to make a comprehensive national energy strategy. Aside from looking at Iraq oil potentials as documents later revealed, the energy task force used Cheney’s considerable political muscle and industry lobbying money to win exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act. [8]

During Cheney’s term as vice president he moved to make sure the Government’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would give a green light to a major expansion of shale gas drilling in the US.

In 2004 the EPA issued a study of the environmental effects of fracking. That study has been called “scientifically unsound” by EPA whistleblower Weston Wilson. In March of 2005, EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley found enough evidence of potential mishandling of the EPA hydraulic fracturing study to justify a review of Wilson’s complaints. The Oil and Gas Accountability Project conducted a review of the EPA study which found that EPA removed information from earlier drafts that suggested unregulated fracturing poses a threat to human health, and that the Agency did not include information that suggests “fracturing fluids may pose a threat to drinking water long after drilling operations are completed.” [9] Under political pressure the report was ignored. Fracking went full-speed ahead.

The Halliburton Loophole is no minor affair. The process of hydraulic fracking to extract gas involves staggering volumes of water and of some of the most toxic chemicals known. Water is essential to shale gas fracking. Hydraulic fracturing uses between 1.2 and 3.5 million US gallons (4.5 and 13 million liters) of water per well, with large projects using up to 5 million US gallons (19 Million liters). Additional water is used when wells are refractured; this may be done several times. An average well requires 3 to 8 million US gallons of water over its lifetime. [10] Entire farm regions of Pennsylvania and other states with widespread hydraulic fracking report their well water sources have become so toxic as to make the water undrinkable. In some cases fracked gas seeps into the home via the normal water faucet.

During the uproar over the BP Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the Obama Administration and the Energy Department formed an Advisory Commission on Shale Gas, ostensibly to examine the growing charges of environmental hazards from shale gas practices.

Their report was released in November 2011. It was what could only be called a “whitewash” of the dangers and benefits of shale gas.

The commission was headed by former CIA director John M. Deutch. Deutch himself is not neutral. He sits on the board of the LNG gas company Cheniere Energy. Deutch’s Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass project is one of only two current US projects to create an LNG terminal to export US shale gas to foreign markets. [11]

Deutch is also on the board of Citigroup, one of the world’s most active energy industry banks, tied to the Rockefeller family. He also sits on the board of Schlumberger, which along with Halliburton, is one of the leading companies doing hydraulic fracking. In fact, of the seven panel members, six had ties to the energy industry, including fellow Deutch panel member and shale fracking booster, Daniel Yergin, himself a member of the National Petroleum Council. Little surprise that the Deutch report called shale gas, “the best piece of news about energy in the last 50 years.” Deutch added, “Over the long term it has the potential to displace liquid fuels in the United States.” [12]Shale gas: Racing against the Clock

With regulatory free-rein, now also backed by the Obama Administration, the US oil and gas industry went full-power into shale gas extraction, taking advantage of high oil and natural gas prices to reap billions in quick gains.

According to official US Department of Energy Energy Information Administration data, shale gas extraction ballooned from just under 2 million MCF in 2007, the first year data was tracked, to more than 8,500,000 Mcf by 2011, a fourfold rise to comprise almost 40% of total dry natural gas extraction in the USA that year. In 2002 shale gas was a mere 3% of total gas. [13]

JPEG - 34.3 kb

Here enters the paradox of the US “shale gas revolution.” Since the days of oil production wars more than a century ago, various industry initiatives had been created to prevent oil and later gas price collapse due to over-production. During the 1930’s there was discovery of the huge East Texas oilfields, and a collapse of oil prices. The State of Texas, whose Railroad Commission (TRC) had been given regulatory powers not only over railroads but also over oil and gas production in what then was the world’s most important oil producing region, was called in to arbitrate the oil wars. That resulted in daily statewide production quotas so successful that OPEC later modeled itself on the TRC experience.

Today, with federal deregulation of the oil and gas industry, such extraction controls are absent as every shale gas producer from BP to Chesapeake Energy, Anadarko Petroleum, Chevron, Encana and others all raced full-tilt to extract the maximum shale gas from their properties.

The reason for the full-throttle extraction is telling. Shale Gas, unlike conventional gas, depletes dramatically faster owing to its specific geological location. It diffuses and becomes impossible to extract without the drilling of costly new wells.

The result of the rapidly rising volumes of shale gas suddenly on the market was a devastating collapse in the market price of that same gas. In 2005 when Cheney got the EPA exemption that began the shale boom, the marker US gas price measured at Henry Hub in Louisiana, at the intersection of nine interstate pipelines, was some $14 per thousand cubic feet. By February 2011 it had plunged amid a gas glut to $3.88. Currently prices hover around $3.50 per tcf. [14]

In a sobering report, Arthur Berman, a veteran petroleum geologist specialized in well assessment, using existing well extraction data for major shale gas regions in the US since the boom started, reached sobering conclusions. His findings point to a new Ponzi scheme which well might play out in a colossal gas bust over the next months or at best, the next two or three years. Shale gas is anything but the “energy revolution” that will give US consumers or the world gas for 100 years as President Obama was told.

Berman wrote already in 2011, “Facts indicate that most wells are not commercial at current gas prices and require prices at least in the range of $8.00 to $9.00/mcf to break even on full-cycle prices, and $5.00 to $6.00/mcf on point-forward prices. Our price forecasts ($4.00-4.55/mcf average through 2012) are below $8.00/mcf for the next 18 months. It is, therefore, possible that some producers will be unable to maintain present drilling levels from cash flow, joint ventures, asset sales and stock offerings.” [15]

Berman continued, “Decline rates indicate that a decrease in drilling by any of the major producers in the shale gas plays would reveal the insecurity of supply. This is especially true in the case of the Haynesville Shale play where initial rates are about three times higher than in the Barnett or Fayetteville. Already, rig rates are dropping in the Haynesville as operators shift emphasis to more liquid-prone objectives that have even lower gas rates. This might create doubt about the paradigm of cheap and abundant shale gas supply and have a cascading effect on confidence and capital availability.” [16]

JPEG - 44.1 kb

What Berman and others have also concluded is that the gas industry key players and their Wall Street bankers backing the shale boom have grossly inflated the volumes of recoverable shale gas reserves and hence its expected supply duration. He notes, “Reserves and economics depend on estimated ultimate recoveries (EUR) based on hyperbolic, or increasingly flattening, decline profiles that predict decades of commercial production. With only a few years of production history in most of these plays, this model has not been shown to be correct, and may be overly optimistic….Our analysis of shale gas well decline trends indicates that the Estimated Ultimate Recovery per well is approximately one-half the values commonly presented by operators.” [17] In brief, the gas producers have built the illusion that their unconventional and increasingly costly shale gas will last for decades.

Basing his analysis on actual well data from major shale gas regions in the US, Berman concludes however, that the shale gas wells decline in production volumes at an exponential rate and are liable to run out far faster than being hyped to the market. Could this be the reason financially exposed US shale gas producers, loaded with billions of dollars in potential lease properties bought during the peak of prices, have recently been desperately trying to sell off their shale properties to naïve foreign or other investors?

Berman concludes:

Three decades of natural gas extraction from tight sandstone and coal-bed methane show that profits are marginal in low permeability reservoirs. Shale reservoirs have orders of magnitude lower reservoir permeability than tight sandstone and coal-bed methane. So why do smart analysts blindly accept that commercial results in shale plays should be different? The simple answer is found in high initial production rates. Unfortunately, these high initial rates are made up for by shorter lifespan wells and additional costs associated with well re-stimulation. Those who expect the long-term unit cost of shale gas to be less than that of other unconventional gas resources will be disappointed…the true structural cost of shale gas production is higher than present prices can support ($4.15/mcf average price for the year ending July 30, 2011), and that per-well reserves are about one-half of the volumes claimed by operators. [18]

Therein lies the explanation for why a sophisticated oil industry in the United States has desperately been producing full-throttle, in a high-stakes game laying the seeds of their own bankruptcy in the process—They are racing to offload the increasingly unprofitable shale assets before the bubble finally bursts. Wall Street financial backers are in on the Ponzi game with billions at stake, much as in the recent real estate securitization fraud.One Hundred Years of Gas?

Where then did someone get the number to tell the US President that America had 100 years of gas supply? Here is where lies, damn lies and statistics play a crucial role. The US does not have 100 years of natural gas supply from shale or unconventional sources. That number came from a deliberate blurring by someone of the fundamental difference between what in oil and gas is termed resources and what is called reserves.

A gas or oil resource is the totality of the gas or oil originally existing on or within the earth’s crust in naturally occurring accumulations, including discovered and undiscovered, recoverable and unrecoverable. It is the total estimate, irrespective of whether the gas or oil is commercially recoverable. It’s also the least interesting number for extraction.

On the other hand “recoverable” oil or gas refers to the estimated volume commercially extractable with a specific technically feasible recovery project, a drilling plan, fracking program and the like. The industry breaks the resources into three categories: reserves, which are discovered and commercially recoverable; contingent resources, which are discovered and potentially recoverable but sub-commercial or non-economic in today’s cost-benefit regime; and prospective resources, which are undiscovered and only potentially recoverable. [19]

According to careful examination of the numbers it is clear that the President, his advisers and others have taken the PGC’s latest total of all three categories, or 2,170 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas—probable, possible and purely speculative—and divided by the 2010 annual consumption of 24 Tcf. To get a number between 90 and 100 years of gas. What is conveniently left unsaid is that most of that total resource is in accumulations too small to be produced at any price, inaccessible to drilling, or is too deep to recover economically. [20]

Arthur Berman in another analysis points out that if we use more conservative and realistic assumptions such as the PGC does in its detailed assessment, more relevant is the Committee’s probable mean resources value of 550 (Tcf) of gas. In turn, if we estimate, also conservatively and realistically based on experience, that about half of this resource actually becomes a reserve (225 Tcf), then the US has approximately 11.5 years of potential future gas supply at present consumption rates.

If we include proved reserves of 273 Tcf, there is an additional 11.5 years of supply for a total of almost 23 years. It is worth noting that proved reserves include proved undeveloped reserves which may or may not be produced depending on economics, so even 23 years of supply is tenuous. If consumption increases, this supply will be exhausted in less than 23 years. [21]

There are also widely differing estimates within the US Government over shale gas recoverable resources. The US Department of Energy EIA uses a very generous calculation for shale gas average recovery efficiency of 13% versus other conservative estimates of about half that or 7% in contrast to recovery efficiencies of 75-80% for conventional gas fields. The generously high recovery efficiency values used for EIA calculations allows the EIA to project an estimate of 482 tcf of recoverable gas for the US. In August 2011, the Interior Department’s US Geological Survey (USGS) released a far more sober estimate for the large shale plays in Pennsylvania and New York called Marcellus Shale. The USGS estimated there are about 84 trillion cubic feet of technically-recoverable natural gas under the Marcellus Shale. Previous estimates from the Energy Information Administration put the figures at 410 trillion cubic feet. [22]

Given the abnormally rapid well decline rates and low recovery efficiencies, it is little wonder that once the euphoria subsided, shale gas producers found themselves sitting on a financial time-bomb and began selling assets to unwary investors as fast as possible.

In a very recent analysis of the actual results of several years of shale gas extraction in the USA as well as the huge and high-cost Canadian Tar Sands oil, David Hughes notes, “Shale gas production has grown explosively to account for nearly 40 percent of US natural gas production. Nevertheless, production has been on a plateau since December 2011; 80 percent of shale gas production comes from five plays, several of which are in decline. The very high decline rates of shale gas wells require continuous inputs of capital—estimated at $42 billion per year to drill more than 7,000 wells—in order to maintain production. In comparison, the value of shale gas produced in 2012 was just $32.5 billion.” [24]

He adds, “The best shale plays, like the Haynesville (which is already in decline) are relatively rare, and the number of wells and capital input required to maintain production will increase going forward as the best areas within these plays are depleted. High collateral environmental impacts have been followed by pushback from citizens, resulting in moratoriums in New York State and Maryland and protests in other states. Shale gas production growth has been offset by declines in conventional gas production, resulting in only modest gas production growth overall. Moreover, the basic economic viability of many shale gas plays is questionable in the current gas price environment.” [25]

If these various estimates are anywhere near accurate, the USA has a resource in unconventional shale gas of anywhere between 11 years and 23 years duration and unconventional oil of perhaps a decade before entering steep decline. The recent rhetoric about US “energy independence” at the current technological state is utter nonsense.

The drilling boom which resulted in this recent glut of shale gas was in part motivated by “held-by-production” shale lease deals with landowners. In such deals the gas company is required to begin drilling in a lease running typically 3-5 years, or forfeit. In the US landowners such as farmers or ranchers typically hold subsurface mineral rights and can lease them out to oil companies. The gas (or oil) company then is under enormous pressure to book gas reserves on the new leases to support company stock prices on the stock market against which it has borrowed heavily to drill.

This “drill or lose it” pressure typically has led companies to seek the juiciest “sweet spots” for fast spectacular gas flows. These are then typically promoted as “typical” of the entire play.

However, as Hughes points out, “High productivity shale plays are not ubiquitous, and relatively small sweet spots within plays offer the most potential. Six of thirty shale plays provide 88 percent of production. Individual well decline rates are high, ranging from 79 to 95 percent after 36 months. Although some wells can be extremely productive, they are typically a small percentage of the total and are concentrated in sweet spots.” [26]

JPEG - 31.7 kbOne estimate of projected shale gas decline suggests the peak will pass well before the end of the decade, perhaps in four years, followed with a rapid decline in volume

The extremely rapid overall gas field declines require from 30 to 50 percent of production to be replaced annually with more drilling, a classic “tiger chasing its tail around the tree” syndrome. This translates to $42 billion of annual capital investment just to maintain current production. By comparison, all USA shale gas produced in 2012 was worth about $32.5 billion at a gas price of $3.40/mcf (which is higher than actual well head prices for most of 2012). That means about a net $10 billion loss on their shale gambles last year for all US shale gas producers.

Even worse, Hughes points out that capital inputs to offset field decline will necessarily increase going forward as the sweet spots within plays are drilled off and drilling moves to lower quality areas. Average well quality (as measured by initial productivity) has fallen nearly 20 percent in the Haynesville, the most productive shale gas play in the US. And it is falling or flat in eight of the top ten plays. Overall well quality is declining for 36 percent of US shale gas production and is flat for 34 percent. [27]

Not surprising in this context, the major shale gas players have been making massive write-downs of their assets to reflect the new reality. Companies began in 2012 reassessing their reserves and, in the face of a gas spot price that was cut in half between July 2011 and July 2012, are being forced to admit that the long-term outlook for natural-gas prices is not positive. The write-downs have a domino effect as bank lending is typically tied to a company’s reserves meaning many companies are being forced to renegotiate credit lines or make distress asset sales to raise cash.

Beginning August 2012, many large shale gas producers in the US were forced to announce major write-downs of the value of their shale gas assets. BP announced write-downs of $4.8 billion, including a $1 billion-plus reduction in the value of its American shale gas assets. England’s BG Group made a $1.3 billion write-down of its US shale gas interests, and Encana, a large Canadian shale gas operator made a $1.7 billion write-down on shale assets in the US and Canada, accompanied by a warning that more were likely if gas prices did not recover. [28]

The Australian mining giant BHP Billiton is one of the worst hit in the US shale gas bubble as it came in late and big-time. In May, 2012 it announced it was considering taking impairments on the value its US shale-gas assets which it had bought at the peak of the shale gas boom in 2011, when the company paid $4.75 billion to buy shale projects from Chesapeake Energy and acquiring Petrohawk Energy for $15.1 billion. [29]

But by far the worst hit is the once-superstar of shale gas, Oklahoma-based Chesapeake Energy.Chesapeake Energy: The Next Enron?

The company by most accounts that typifies this shale gas boom-bust bubble is the much-hailed leading player in shale, Chesapeake Energy. In August 2012 there were widespread rumors that the company would declare bankruptcy. That would have been embarrassing for the company that was the nation’s second largest gas producer. It would also have signaled to the world the hype that was behind promotion of a “shale energy revolution” from the likes of Yergin and the Wall Street energy promoters looking to earn billions on M&A and other deals in the sector to replace their dismal real estate experiences.

In May 2012, Bill Powers of the Powers Energy Investor, wrote of Chesapeake (CHK by its stock symbl): “Over the past year, however, CHK’s business model has broken down. The company’s shares continue to break to 52-week lows and the company has a funding issue—financial speak for the company is running out of money. While it was able to farm-out a portion of its Utica Shale assets in Ohio to France’s Total last year—this is remarkable given the accounting errors that resulted in Total receiving significantly less revenue from their Barnett Shale joint-venture—CHK has largely run out of prospective acreage to farm-out.” Powers estimated a $3 billion cash shortfall in 2012 for the company. That comes atop already huge corporate debt of $11.1 billion of which $1.7 billion was a revolving line of credit. [30]

Powers adds, “When the off-balance sheet debt and preferred issues are added to the company’s existing $11.1 billion of on-balance sheet debt, CHK’s has a whopping $20.5 billion of financial obligations. Given such a high level of indebtedness, CHK debt is rated junk and will be for the foreseeable future. “ He concludes, “Having America’s second largest natural gas producer as well as its most reckless destroyer of shareholder capital almost completely walk away from the shale gas business is a great indication that today’s natural gas price bubble is on the verge of popping. CHK has not made any money by drilling shale wells—and neither have virtually any of its peers—and now the dumb money has run out.” [31]

Angry shareholders forced a major shakeup of the Chesapeake board last September after a Reuters report that CEO Aubrey McClendon had been taking out large loans not fully disclosed to the company’s board or investors. McClendon was forced to resign as Chairman of the company he founded after details leaked out that McClendon has borrowed as much as $1.1 billion in the last three years by pledging his stake in the company’s oil and natural gas wells as collateral. [32] In March 2013 the US Government Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that it was investigating the company and Chief Executive Aubrey McClendon and had issued subpoenas for information and testimony, among other items looking into a controversial program that grants McClendon a share in every well that Chesapeake drills. [33]

The company is in the midst of a major asset sale of an estimated $6.9 billion to lower debt, including oil and gasfields covering roughly 2.4 million acres. It must invest heavily in drilling new wells to deliver the increased production of more lucrative oil and natural gas liquids, if it is to avoid bankruptcy. [34] As one critical analyst of Chesapeake put it, “the company’s complex accounting methods make it almost impossible for analysts and stockholders to determine what the risks really are. The fact that the CEO is taking out billion-dollar loans and not openly disclosing them only furthers the perception that everything is not as it appears at Chesapeake – that the company is Enron with drilling rigs.” [35]

The much-touted shale gas revolution in the USA is collapsing along with the stock shares of Chesapeake and other key players.F. William Engdahl Facebook Twitter Delicious Seenthis Digg RSS

[2] President Barack Obama, President Obama’s State of the Union Address , January 25, 2012, The New York Times, January 24, 2012.

[3] Daniel Yergin, Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Testimony submitted for Hearings on ‘America’s Energy Security and Innovation,’ Washington D.C., February 5, 2013.

John Kerry’s murky game

by
Thierry Meyssan

While
the Syrian Arab army has lost Rakka, leaving de facto a northern part of
the country under Turkish control, the United States has been sending
contradictory signals. Have they have chosen to continue the war by
proxy or are they gearing up to impose on their allies the peace
agreement they have negotiated with the Russians?

John Kerry with his Saudi homologue, the ultra-reactionary Prince Al-Faisal.

The implementation of the peace plan for Syria
negotiated between Russians and Americans is running at a standstill.
First there was the delay in the confirmation of the new U.S. security
team by the Senate. Then, inconsistent if not contradictory statements
by the new Secretary of State, John Kerry.

Anyway, two new elements can be established.
• The activism of Saudi Arabia and Qatar has been reinforced with the apparent agreement of the Department of State.At a joint press conference with his Saudi counterpart, John Kerry twice repeated the US commitment to a "peaceful solution" in Syria. But two minutes later, he approved the sending of Saudi Arabian arms to the Syrian "moderate" opposition. Kerry reiterated these contradictions during his visit to Qatar.
At the symbolic level, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have attributed the
Syrian seat of the Arab League to the Syrian National Coalition. In
addition, upon request, the League has authorized its members to arm the
" Syrian rebels." It is impossible that members of the League have voted for these actions without prior approval from Mr. Kerry.
In international law, claiming or approving the unilateral sending of
weapons to rebel groups, absent a resolution of the Security Council,
is a crime. If Syria filed a complaint before the International Court of
Justice, for sure she would get a condemnation of Saudi Arabia, Qatar,
the United States, the Arab League and several others under the
precedent set in "Nicaragua vs USA "(1984).
The initiative of the Arab League denies any credibility to the
Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Lakhdar Brahimi. The
old diplomat can not expect to play mediator as he represents a de facto
party to the conflict, the Syrian National Coalition, even if it does
not yet occupy the seat that was assigned.
• The Israelis have stepped up sycophantic efforts to help
everyone forget their interference in the U.S. presidential campaign.
Come to Washington to attend the AIPAC annual conference, General Ehud
Barak gushed compliments to U.S. authorities, ensuring them
that they had never been so close to the state of Israel. Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, gave up for the first time to travel and
chose to intervene via video so he does not have to meet face-to-face
with leaders who would take him to task. The quarrel is thus reduced to a
personal matter in order to not affect relations between states.
Ehud Barak was received at the Pentagon by his U.S. counterpart,
Chuck Hagel, with whom he has developed a good relationship in the past.
The Israeli obtained that U.S. aid (about $ 3 billion annually) not be
affected by budget cuts. In return, he ceded over Syria. In the
Department of Defense press release, it is clear that the two sides
discussed issues of common security "including the need for the
Syrian regime to maintain its control over its chemical and biological
weapons; the leaders committed to continue planning emergency measures
to counter this potential threat. "
In other words, Washington and Tel Aviv are no longer considering "regime change"
in Damascus, and agreed to help the Syrian Arab army maintain control
of its chemical and biological weapons in the event of jihadists
attacks.
Israel is withdrawing from the conflict. To wit: two days after this
turnaround, on the Syrian coast they revealed and dismantled a complex
system of Israeli electronic monitoring and communication.
• In the final analysis, the United States is looking to
militarily disengage itself and its alter ego Israel, then encourage
their Gulf allies to escalate a military and diplomatic blockade.
It is still too early to determine if they are double dealing and
setting a trap for Russia at the expense of the Syrian people, or if
they are pushing their Gulf allies into an impasse to better impose the
solution negotiated with Moscow.

Mining for the Truth is like digging at the decrepit body of
manipulated worldly information for real substance. A pile of petrified
insanity, we’re chipping away at it until inner forms are revealed. That
the new Pope is a Jesuit, the first one ever, is a very big deal. The
Jesuits are no small force. People think they resemble innocuous
Franciscan monks who focus on education.

Nothing could be further from the truth. They are the polar opposite. Of the worst sort.

Beware this new Pope. His roots are nasty and we’re in an age of
increasing darkness and violence. This ruthless, militant Jesuit
“society” has one hellish oath that should get you wondering and
researching real fast.

The Jesuit Oath Exposed

Hold on for this one. This is an excerpt, and this oath is still in use.

I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity
presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly, against all
heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do, to extirpate
them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither
age, sex nor condition, and that will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay,
strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs
and wombs of their women, and crush their infants’ heads against the
walls in order to annihilate their execrable race. That when the same
cannot be done openly I will secretly use the poisonous cup, the
strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet,
regardless of the honour, rank, dignity or authority of the persons,
whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I
at any time may be directed so to do by any agents of the Pope or
Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus.

In
confirmation of which I hereby dedicate my life, soul, and all corporal
powers, and with the dagger which I now receive I will subscribe my
name written in my blood in testimony thereof; and should I prove false,
or weaken in my determination, may my brethren and fellow soldiers of
the militia of the Pope cut off my hands and feet and my throat from ear
to ear, my belly be opened and sulphur burned therein with all the
punishment that can be inflicted upon me on earth, and my soul shall be
tortured by demons in eternal hell forever. [Full Oath exposed HERE]

Revisionist History Cover Up – Meet the Jesuit Order

The Jesuit Order
is an almost 500-year old covert operations, geo-political, male-only
organization, structured as a secret military operation: demanding
secret oaths and complete obedience to each direct superior, which is
ultimately the Superior General (often nicknamed as the Black Pope, since he dresses in black and ‘stands in the shadow’ of the white Pope).

The “Society of Jesus” – as they are officially known – was
originally used by the Vatican to counter the various Reformation
movements in Europe, to which the Vatican lost much of its religious and
political power. Absolute-temporal-ruling power has always been the
Vatican institution’s primary objective. Source

While so-called modern history hardly mentions how hated this
fanatical sect was, it wasn’t long ago that it was well known to be an
“odious” and extremely dangerous organization.

Just look at these quotes:

“My history of the Jesuits is not eloquently written, but
it is supported by unquestionable authorities, [and] is very particular
and very horrible. Their [the Jesuit Order’s] restoration [in 1814 by
Pope Pius VII] is indeed a step toward darkness, cruelty, despotism,
[and] death. … I do not like the appearance of the Jesuits. If ever
there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in
hell, it is this Society of [Ignatius de] Loyola.”
John Adams (1735-1826; 2nd President of the United States)

“It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country – the United
States of America – are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the
Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous
enemies to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated MOST of the
wars of Europe.”
Marquis de LaFayette (1757-1834; French statesman and general. He served
in the American Continental Army under the command of General George
Washington during the American Revolutionary War.)

“The war [i.e., the American Civil War of 1861-1865] would never have
been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits.”
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865; 16th President of the United States)

“The Jesuits…are a secret society – a sort of Masonic order – with
superadded features of revolting odiousness, and a thousand times more
dangerous.” – Samuel Morse (1791-1872; American inventor of the
telegraph; author of the book Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties
of the United States)

“The Jesuits are a MILITARY organization, not a religious order.
Their chief is a general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a
monastery. And the aim of this organization is power – power in its most
despotic exercise – absolute power, universal power, power to control
the world by the volition of a single man [i.e., the Black Pope, the
Superior General of the Jesuits]. Jesuitism is the most absolute of
despotisms [sic] – and at the same time the greatest and most enormous
of abuses…”
Napoleon I (i.e., Napoleon Bonaparte; 1769-1821; emperor of the French)

Next, I defer to Vigilant Citizen with his succinct summary of the Illuminati/Jesuit connections:

Adam Weishaupt, Trained by the Jesuits

Adam Weishaupt was born in Ingolstadt, Bavaria on February 6, 1748.
His father died when he was seven and his godfather, Baron Ickstatt,
entrusted his early education to the most powerful group of the time:
the Jesuits. Known for its subversive methods and conspiratorial
tendencies, the Society of Jesus had a stronghold on Bavaria’s politics
and educational system.

“The degree of power to which the representatives of the Society of
Jesus had been able to attain in Bavaria was all but absolute. Members
of the order were the confessors and preceptors of the electors; hence
they had a direct influence upon the policies of government. The
censorship of religion had fallen into their eager hands, to the extent
that some of the parishes even were compelled to recognize their
authority and power. To exterminate all Protestant influence and to
render the Catholic establishment complete, they had taken possession of
the instruments of public education. It was by Jesuits that the
majority of the Bavarian colleges were founded, and by them they were
controlled. By them also the secondary schools of the country were
conducted.” 4

The inner-workings of the Society of Jesus was quite similar to the
occult Brotherhoods it was apparently working against. It functioned
with degrees, initiation rites, elaborate rituals and esoteric symbols
and had been suppressed countless times in several countries due to its
subversive tendencies.

In 1773, Weishaupt’s godfather used his great influence at the
University of Ingolstadt to place his godson as chair of canon law. At
that time, the institution was under heavy Jesuitical dominance and that
particular position was traditionally held by influential Jesuits.
Weishaupt’s growing embrace of Age of Enlightenment philosophies placed
him at odds with the Jesuits and all kinds of political drama ensued.
Despite this fact, Weishaupt learned a lot from the Jesuit’s
organization and their subversive methods to obtain power. It is during
this time that the idea of a Secret Society began to enter Weishaupt’s
thoughts.

“Brilliant, and well trained in the conspiratorial methods of access
to power, young Weishaupt decided to organize a body of conspirators,
determined to free the world from the Jesuitical rule of Rome.” 5

While some authors believe that the Jesuits (who were suppressed by
papal bull in 1773) used Weishaupt to perpetuate their rule, others
state that he was seeking to overthrow their powerful hold on Bavaria.
On a wider scale, he was convinced that the world would profit from the
overthrow of all governmental and religious institutions in the world to
replace them by a world-wide, yet secretive, committee of “initiates”.
To achieve his aims, he would use Jesuit methods against the Jesuits.

The Militant Catholic Church and World Domination

Jesuitism stepping on the neck of Protestantism.

Few would believe what the Vatican has been up to all these
centuries. Vietnam was commonly known as Spelly’s War, named after
Cardinal Spellman. Why…Exterminating infidels?

Cardinal Spellman gives mass to the troops in WW2

Successor to Fascist Dictator Francisco Franco and Knight of
Malta, King Juan Carlos, with Grand Master of the Sovereign Military
Order of Malta, Andrew Cardinal Bertie

Knight of Malta Amschel Mayer Rothschild (1744–1812)

The Knights of Malta is not merely a “charitable organization”.

That’s just an elaborate front… As the name Sovereign Military Order
of Malta (SMOM) confirms, it is a military order based on the crusader
Knights Hospitaller of Jerusalem and is interwoven with Freemasonry.
Most people have never even heard of SMOM, much less that it is a part
of Freemasonry. But that is the way the aristocratic elite like it.

(same double eagle as Freemasonry–ed.)

One of the symbols of the military orders of the Vatican, the masonic double-headed eagle
emblazoned with the Maltese cross, signifies omnipotent royal dominion
over both East and West. The orb signifies temporal dominion over the
globe of Earth, and the scepter signifies control over the spiritual and
religious impulses of humanity.

There’s a popular medical thriller novel in which a global pandemic
is intentionally set off by an evil plot designed to reduce the human
population. In the book, a nefarious drug company inserts live avian
flu viruses into vaccine materials that are distributed to countries
around the world to be injected into patients as "flu shots." Those
patients then become carriers for these highly-virulent strains of
avian flu which go on to infect the world population and cause
widespread death.

One of the major global pharmaceutical players
seems to have lost control over a virus which is considered by many
virologists to be one of the components leading some day to a new
pandemic.

There’s only one problem with this story: It’s not fiction. Or, at least, the part about live avian flu viruses being inserted into vaccine materials isn’t fiction. It’s happening right now.

Deerfield, Illinois-based pharmaceutical company Baxter International Inc. has just been caught shipping live avian flu viruses mixed with vaccine material to medical distributors in 18 countries.
The "mistake" (if you can call it that, see below…) was discovered by
the National Microbiology Laboratory in Canada. The World Health
Organization was alerted and panic spread throughout the vaccine
community as health experts asked the obvious question: How could this have happened?

"Baxter International Inc. in Austria ‘unintentionally contaminated samples with the bird flu virus
that were used in laboratories in 3 neighbouring countries, raising
concern about the potential spread of the deadly disease’. Austria,
Germany, Slowenia and the Czech Republic – these are the countries in
which labs were hit with dangerous viruses. Not by bioterrorist
commandos, but by Baxter. In other words: One of the major global
pharmaceutical players seems to have lost control over a virus which is
considered by many virologists to be one of the components leading some
day to a new pandemic."

Or, put another way, Baxter is acting a whole lot like a biological terrorism organization these days, sending deadly viral samples around the world. If you mail an envelope full of anthrax to your Senator, you get arrested as a terrorist.
So why is Baxter — which mailed samples of a far more deadly viral
strain to labs around the world — getting away with saying,
essentially, "Oops?"

[efoods]But there’s a bigger question in all this: How could this company have accidentally mixed LIVE avian flu viruses (both H5N1 and H3N2, the human form) in this vaccine material?

Was the viral contamination intentional?

The shocking answer is that this couldn’t have been an accident. Why? Because Baxter International adheres to something called BSL3 (Biosafety Level 3) — a set of laboratory safety protocols that prevent the cross-contamination of materials.

"Laboratory personnel have specific training in handling pathogenic
and potentially lethal agents, and are supervised by competent
scientists who are experienced in working with these agents. This is
considered a neutral or warm zone. All procedures involving the
manipulation of infectious materials are conducted within biological
safety cabinets or other physical containment devices, or by personnel
wearing appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment. The
laboratory has special engineering and design features."

About Me

ROLAND SAN JUAN was a researcher, management consultant, inventor, a part time radio broadcaster and a publishing director. He died last November 25, 2008 after suffering a stroke. His staff will continue his unfinished work to inform the world of the untold truths. Please read Erick San Juan's articles at: ericksanjuan.blogspot.com This blog is dedicated to the late Max Soliven, a FILIPINO PATRIOT.
DISCLAIMER - We do not own or claim any rights to the articles presented in this blog. They are for information and reference only for whatever it's worth. They are copyrighted to their rightful owners.
************************************
Please listen in to Erick San Juan's daily radio program which is aired through DWSS 1494khz AM @ 5:30pm, Mondays through Fridays, R.P. time, with broadcast title, “WHISTLEBLOWER” the broadcast tackle current issues, breaking news, commentaries and analyses of various events of political and social significance.
***************************************
LIVE STREAMING
http://www.dwss-am1494khz.blogspot.com